Correlation of capecitabine-induced skin toxicity with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the German AIO KRK-0104 trial

Abstract

Background:

The AIO KRK-0104 randomised phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of two capecitabine-based regimens: combination of capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) plus cetuximab (CAPIRI-C) and combination of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) plus cetuximab (CAPOX-C) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Treatment-related skin toxicity (ST) was evaluated separately for capecitabine and cetuximab. The present analysis investigates the correlation of capecitabine-attributed ST (Cape-ST) and parameters of treatment efficacy.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were randomised to cetuximab (400 mg m−2, day 1, followed by 250 mg m−2 weekly) plus CAPIRI (irinotecan 200 mg m−2, day 1; capecitabine 800 mg m−2, twice daily, days 1–14, every 3 weeks), or cetuximab plus CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2, day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg m−2, twice daily, days 1–14, every 3 weeks).

Results:

Of 185 recruited patients, 149 (CAPIRI-C, n=78; CAPOX-C, n=71) received study treatment beyond the first tumour assessment and were evaluable for efficacy. Capecitabine-attributed ST, predominantly hand–foot syndrome, was observed in 32.2% of patients. Capecitabine-attributed ST grade 1–3 was associated with a significantly higher disease control rate (DCR) (97.9 vs 86.1%, P=0.038) compared with grade 0 toxicity. Moreover, Cape-ST grade 1–3 related to a markedly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (9.9 vs 5.6 months, P<0.001) and overall survival (OS) (32.8 vs 22.4 months, P=0.008). Separate analyses of treatment arms indicated that the effect of Cape-ST on PFS remained significant for both arms, whereas the effect on OS remained apparent as a strong trend.

Conclusion:

This analysis supports the hypothesis that for the evaluated regimens, a correlation exists between Cape-ST and treatment efficacy regarding DCR, PFS, and OS.

Main

Fluoropyrimidines such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine are effective and well-established agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Capecitabine is an oral prodrug that is metabolised to the active 5-FU in a three-step enzymatic conversion (Miwa et al, 1998). The last and rate-limiting step of drug activation is catalysed intracellularly by thymidine phosphorylase (TP) (Diasio, 2002). Tumour cells notably express higher levels of TP than normal tissue, which may be responsible for some degree of selective anti-tumour activity (Schuller et al, 2000).

Several phase III trials have demonstrated that the combination of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) has similar activity as the combination of oxaliplatin with an infusional 5-FU regimen (FOLFOX) (Diaz-Rubio et al, 2007; Porschen et al, 2007; Cassidy et al, 2008). The combination of capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) has never been formally compared with an infusional 5-FU-containing regimen. However, the efficacy and safety of CAPIRI are documented by a number of independent clinical studies (Bajetta et al, 2004; Rea et al, 2005; Koopman et al, 2007; Moosmann et al, 2011).

Capecitabine notably induces ST, specifically hand–foot syndrome (HFS) and nail changes in a dose-dependent manner. Although HFS is not a life-threatening toxicity, it may induce a substantial decrease of quality of life and, accordingly, may cause a delay or discontinuation of treatment (Heo et al, 2004). According to data from phase II and phase III trials, HFS grade 1–3 occurs at a rate of 43–71%, whereas grade 3 HFS has an incidence of 5–24% (Wolf et al, 2010). Up to now, only little information is available relating capecitabine-induced ST (Cape-ST) to treatment efficacy. The present analysis investigates this topic in the AIO KRK-0104 study. This randomised phase II trial investigated two capecitabine-based regimens: CAPIRI plus cetuximab (CAPIRI-C) and CAPOX plus cetuximab (CAPOX-C) in the first-line treatment of mCRC (Moosmann et al, 2011). As it was known that ST was an important predictor of treatment efficacy in cetuximab-treated patients, it was carefully and prospectively evaluated within the study protocol. On the basis of this premise it was possible to perform a separate evaluation of ST induced by capecitabine or cetuximab according to the judgment of the treating physician.

Materials and methods

This explorative analysis evaluated patients of the randomised AIO KRK-0104 phase II study. A total of 185 patients from 35 German centres were included. In both the study arms, cetuximab was given at an initial dose of 400 mg m−2 as a 120-min infusion, followed by weekly infusions of 250 mg m−2 over 60 min. Patients in the CAPIRI-C arm received chemotherapy with CAPIRI, that is, oral capecitabine 800 mg m−2, twice daily on days 1–14, followed by a 1-week rest period plus irinotecan 200 mg m−2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion on day 1. In patients aged >65 years, doses were further reduced by 20%. Patients in the CAPOX-C arm received capecitabine 1000 mg m−2, twice daily on days 1–14, followed by a 1-week rest period plus oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2 as a 120-min intravenous infusion on day 1. Treatment cycles were repeated every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was evaluated with consistent imaging techniques (MRI or CT scan) every 6 weeks (two cycles) according to the RECIST criterions. Only patients that were on study for more than 6 weeks and therefore had at least one tumour assessment were included into this analysis. These patients were defined as assessable for treatment efficacy.

Evaluation of skin toxicity

Skin toxicity was evaluated using the NCI-CTCAE (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events) version 3.0 at any treatment cycle. Possible items were: desquamation/rash, nail changes, HFS, and ‘other skin toxicities’. Investigators were asked to specifically relate toxicity to the study medication. As previously reported by others, Cape-ST was defined as HFS or any other reported ST when indicated as capecitabine related (Tol et al, 2009). By contrast, cetuximab-related ST was defined as ST, which was marked by the investigators as cetuximab-related, with the exception of HFS. We analysed the time to first occurrence and time of maximum grade ST by treatment cycle, and its predictive value with regard to treatment efficacy. Furthermore, ST was grouped into clinically nonsignificant ST (grade 0–1) and clinically relevant ST (grade 2–4), requiring treatment or discontinuation of the study medication.

To exclude the possibility that Cape-ST is just an indicator of longer treated patients, we also calculated survival (progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)) for patients that were on treatment until the first (two cycles) and second (four cycles) tumour assessment.

Statistics

Correlation analyses were performed regarding Cape-ST and efficacy parameters such as overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), PFS, and OS. Differences in ORR and DCR between the different treatment groups, CAPIRI-C and CAPOX-C, were evaluated using Fisher's exact test within an exploratory analysis. Progression-free survival and OS were tested using the Kaplan–Meier method and the logrank test. SPSS PASW 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) software was used for statistical analyses.

Results

Patient characteristics

Of 185 randomised patients, 149 patients received chemotherapy until the first tumour assessment and were defined as the efficacy-assessable population. Patient characteristics were balanced between treatment arms with regard to median age, sex, Karnofsky performance status, visceral metastasis, and number of metastatic disease sites.

Incidence of skin toxicity

Skin toxicity attributed to capecitabine by investigators was observed in 48 out of 149 (32.2%) patients. Hand–foot syndrome as the main Cape-ST was diagnosed in 46 patients (31%) and nail changes in 12 patients (8%). Accordingly, among 48 patients there were only 2 patients presenting with nail changes attributed by investigators to capecitabine who did not suffer from a HFS. Overall, no grade 4 ST was observed. Capecitabine-specific ST grade 1–3 was observed to a greater extent in the CAPOX-C compared with the CAPIRI-C in 25.6% of patients in the CAPIRI-C arm, and in 39.4% of the CAPOX-C arm (Table 1). This finding most likely relates to the higher dose of capecitabine used in the CAPOX-C arm. By contrast, cetuximab-associated ST was documented in 142 out of 149 (95.3%) of assessable patients.

Table 1 Capecitabine-specific skin toxicity – frequency of occurrence

Treatment delay and dose reductions

Of 920 evaluated treatment cycles, 539 were applied in patients with grade 0 Cape-ST and 381 cycles in patients with grade 1–3 Cape-ST. Dose reductions of capecitabine were significantly more frequent in patients with Cape-ST (45.1 vs 29.3%, P<0.0001). On the contrary, delays of treatment were documented less often in Cape-ST patients (15.5 vs 21.0%, P=0.04).

Kinetics of skin toxicity

Capecitabine-attributed ST was diagnosed after median treatment duration of three cycles (Figure 1). Maximal Cape-ST developed at a slower rate, and median time to maximal Cape-ST was five treatment cycles. To some extent, the kinetics of Cape-ST paralleled those of cetuximab-ST. However, cetuximab-ST developed faster and was already documented after a median time of one treatment cycle. Median time to maximal cetuximab-ST was two cycles.

Figure 1
figure1

Time of occurrence of capecitabine-related skin toxicity by cycle.

Correlation of skin toxicity and response to treatment

Tumour response to systemic chemotherapy was nearly identical when patients received CAPIRI-C (52.6, 95% CI: 40.9–64.0) or CAPOX-C (59.2, 95% CI: 46.8–70.7) (Moosmann et al, 2011) (Table 2). We therefore analysed both treatment arms together and compared Cape-ST in both treatment arms with parameters of efficacy (Table 2). When the subgroup of Cape-ST grade 0 (n=101) was compared with patients with Cape-ST grade 1–3, ORR did not significantly differ (54.5 vs 58.3%, P=0.725). However, significantly more patients achieved a DCR in the Cape-ST grade 1–3 subgroup (97.9 vs 86.1%, P=0.038).

Table 2 Capecitabine-specific skin toxicity – correlation with response

Correlation of skin toxicity to survival parameters

In the combined analysis of both treatment arms, the higher the grade of Cape-ST to be observed, the longer the PFS and OS were (Table 3). Progression-free survival was significantly longer when patients with Cape-ST grade 1–3 were compared with Cape-ST grade 0 (9.9 vs 5.6 months, P<0.001; Table 3B). Similarly, also OS was markedly longer in the Cape-ST grade 1–3 group than in the Cape-ST grade 0 group (32.8 vs 22.4%, P=0.008) (Figures 2A and B; Table 3B).

Table 3 Capecitabine-specific skin toxicity – survival data
Figure 2
figure2

(A) Progression-free survival, capecitabine-related skin toxicity (grade 0 vs grade 1–3). (B) Overall survival, capecitabine-related skin toxicity (grade 0 vs grade 1–3).

Even when survival times were recalculated for patients who were on treatment until the second tumour assessment (four cycles or 6 weeks), data for PFS (6.3 vs 9.9 months, logrank P<0.001) and OS (27.3 vs 33.2 months, logrank P=0.034) remained significant.

This effect was independently observed also when the treatment arms were evaluated separately (Tables 3C and D). The impact of Cape-ST on PFS remained significant for CAPIRI-C (8.5 vs 5.2 months, P=0.011) and for CAPOX-C (9.9 vs 6.5 months, P=0.004) (Figures 3A and C). The effect of Cape-ST on OS also remained evident as a strong trend for CAPIRI-C (32.0 vs 19.7 months) and for CAPOX-C (37.5 vs 24.0 months) (Figures 3B and D; Tables 3C and D).

Figure 3
figure3

(A) CAPIRI cetuximab (Arm A) PFS, capecitabine-related skin toxicity (Cape-ST) (grade 0 vs grade 1–3). (B) CAPIRI cetuximab (Arm A) OS, Cape-ST (grade 0 vs grade 1–3). (C) CAPOX cetuximab (Arm B) PFS Cape-ST (grade 0 vs grade 1–3). (D) CAPOX cetuximab (Arm B) OS, Cape-ST (grade 0 vs grade 1–3).

Discussion

The present study investigated Cape-ST as an early indicator of treatment efficacy in patients receiving either CAPIRI-C or CAPOX-C. Although both, capecitabine and cetuximab cause ST, they mostly present with a different phenotype (e.g., HFS vs acneiform rash). However, there is also some possibility of overlap in ST induced by these agents. Within this analysis, it was therefore decided to follow the investigators’ judgement. Capecitabine-related ST was, accordingly, defined as HFS or any other reported ST when an association with capecitabine was stated by the treating physician.

Incidence of capecitabine-induced skin toxicity

Capecitabine-induced ST was documented in 32% (48 out of 149) of assessable patients. When both groups were evaluated together, grade 3 Cape-ST was observed in 6.7% (10 out of 149) of patients. In the CAPOX-C arm, grade 3 Cape-ST occurred at a rate of 11.3%, which is in keeping with previous reports. According to Cassidy et al (2008), chemotherapy with CAPOX alone induced grade 3 HFS at a rate of 6%. Borner et al (2008) reported a randomised phase II trial comparing CAPOX with CAPOX-C. The rate of grade 3–4 HFS was 5% in patients receiving CAPOX and 3% when cetuximab was added. Owing to a higher dose of capecitabine, the rate of grade 3–4 HFS was higher in the CAIRO2 study, but in this study the addition of cetuximab did not increase its incidence (18 vs 16%) (Tol et al, 2008).

Certainly, the question remains to what extent capecitabine and cetuximab interact at the level of ST. An evaluation of the published literature leads to the following conclusions: (1) There is no indication that cetuximab applied as a single agent induces HFS (Cunningham et al, 2004; Jonker et al, 2007). (2) There is no evidence from comparative studies to suggest that cetuximab enhances the capecitabine-induced HFS (Borner et al, 2008; Tol et al, 2009).

Dose dependence of hand–foot syndrome

Capecitabine-induced ST occurs as a dose-dependent event (Lassere and Hoff, 2004; Gressett et al, 2006). As a higher dose of capecitabine was administered in the CAPOX-C-compared with the CAPIRI-C arm (1000 mg m−2 b.i.d. vs 800 mg m−2 b.i.d.), Cape-ST was more frequently observed in the CAPOX-C arm (39.4 vs 25.6%, P=0.81).

Although it can be argued that the poor response of patients without Cape-ST may just be a result of underdosing, it needs to be pointed out that all patients were treated according to the study protocol. Therefore, none of those were underdosed ‘per protocol’ at the start of the trial. When treatment patterns were analysed, it became apparent that patients with any Cape-ST had a significantly higher percentage of cycles with dose reductions of capecitabine (45.1 vs 29.3%, P<0.0001). This leads to the conclusion that the average capecitabine dose per cycle was even lower in patients with Cape-ST than in those without any Cape-ST. Possibly as a result of dose reductions, treatment delays occurred less frequently in patients with Cape-ST. As baseline characteristics of both patient groups did not indicate relevant differences, it is most likely that pharmacodynamic differences are responsible for different toxicity profiles and response to medication.

Kinetics of hand–foot syndrome

Figure 1 indicates that Cape-ST is first documented after a median of three treatment cycles. This is in accordance with recent reports stating that grade 2–3 HFS develops after a median of three cycles of therapy (Kang et al, 2010; Wolf et al, 2010). When the kinetics of Cape-ST was compared with those induced by cetuximab it became apparent that cetuximab-ST developed faster and was documented already after a median of one treatment cycle.

Predictive value of hand–foot syndrome

So far, there is only limited data regarding the predictive value of HFS as the typical Cape-ST. In the present study, Cape-ST grade 1–3 was not correlated with ORR, however, it predicted a significantly greater DCR (97.9 vs 86.1%, P=0.038) compared with patients with no Cape-ST. To our knowledge, this is the first publication, which demonstrates the predictive role of Cape-ST for PFS and OS. As this effect was observed in the CAPIRI-C- and the CAPOX-C treatment arm, an interaction with irinotecan or oxaliplatin is unlikely.

Mechanism of capecitabine-induced hand–foot syndrome

The mechanism of HFS as a main component of Cape-ST remains to be fully understood. Serum levels of 5-FU in patients receiving capecitabine are generally low and therefore do not serve as predictors of HFS (Abushullaih et al, 2002). One study examining the levels of TP, a key enzyme in the metabolism of capecitabine to 5-FU, revealed higher TP expression in palmar skin compared with specimens derived from the back of the hand. Accordingly, it may be speculated that activation of capecitabine to the toxic 5-FU occurs to a greater extent in the palmar skin, which then causes HFS (Milano et al, 2008). However, it is unknown to what extent palmar toxicity relates to intratumoral activation of capecitabine. A correlation between HFS and treatment efficacy has previously been reported by Twelves et al (2008). Patients, receiving capecitabine for adjuvant therapy, who experienced grade 1–3 HFS had a greater 5-year survival rate as compared with patients without HFS (73.8 vs 66.3%).

Limitations

The data provided by this analysis lead to the hypothesis that patients not having any manifestation of HFS might benefit from higher doses of capecitabine. Clearly, the present investigation is limited by its retrospective nature and by the rather small patient number. Furthermore, we cannot completely exclude the possibility that patients showing Cape-ST are also those who are on therapy for longer times and therefore just benefit from longer duration of treatment. As there is much debate about the optimal dosing of capecitabine not only with regard to Cape-ST but also with regard to other toxicities such as diarrhoea, the proposal of a more individualised dosing of capecitabine needs validation by a prospective trial. Also in this context it needs to be kept in mind that regional differences may determine the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines such as capecitabine (Haller et al, 2008).

Conclusion

In the setting of first-line chemotherapy with CAPIRI-C or CAPOX-C, Cape-ST appears to be an early indicator of treatment efficacy. Capecitabine-induced ST is predictive for a longer PFS and OS. The percentage of HFS is associated with higher dosing, so that patients not showing any HFS might be treated with higher doses.

Change history

  • 29 March 2012

    This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication

References

  1. Abushullaih S, Saad ED, Munsell M, Hoff PM (2002) Incidence and severity of hand-foot syndrome in colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine: a single-institution experience. Cancer Invest 20 (1): 3–10

  2. Bajetta E, Di Bartolomeo M, Mariani L, Cassata A, Artale S, Frustaci S, Pinotti G, Bonetti A, Carreca I, Biasco G, Bonaglia L, Marini G, Iannelli A, Cortinovis D, Ferrario E, Beretta E, Lambiase A, Buzzoni R (2004) Randomized multicenter Phase II trial of two different schedules of irinotecan combined with capecitabine as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 100 (2): 279–287

  3. Borner M, Koeberle D, Von Moos R, Saletti P, Rauch D, Hess V, Trojan A, Helbling D, Pestalozzi B, Caspar C, Ruhstaller T, Roth A, Kappeler A, Dietrich D, Lanz D, Mingrone W (2008) Adding cetuximab to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK. Ann Oncol 19 (7): 1288–1292

  4. Cassidy J, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, Koski S, Lichinitser M, Yang TS, Rivera F, Couture F, Sirzen F, Saltz L (2008) Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26 (12): 2006–2012

  5. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, Khayat D, Bleiberg H, Santoro A, Bets D, Mueser M, Harstrick A, Verslype C, Chau I, Van Cutsem E (2004) Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351 (4): 337–345

  6. Diasio RB (2002) An evolving role for oral fluoropyrimidine drugs. J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 894–896

  7. Diaz-Rubio E, Tabernero J, Gomez-Espana A, Massuti B, Sastre J, Chaves M, Abad A, Carrato A, Queralt B, Reina JJ, Maurel J, Gonzalez-Flores E, Aparicio J, Rivera F, Losa F, Aranda E (2007) Phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with continuous-infusion fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: final report of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors Trial. J Clin Oncol 25 (27): 4224–4230

  8. Gressett SM, Stanford BL, Hardwicke F (2006) Management of hand-foot syndrome induced by capecitabine. J Oncol Pharm Pract 12 (3): 131–141

  9. Haller DG, Cassidy J, Clarke SJ, Cunningham D, Van Cutsem E, Hoff PM, Rothenberg ML, Saltz LB, Schmoll HJ, Allegra C, Bertino JR, Douillard JY, Gustavsson BG, Milano G, O’Connell M, Rustum Y, Tabernero J, Gilberg F, Sirzen F, Twelves C (2008) Potential regional differences for the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines. J Clin Oncol 26 (13): 2118–2123

  10. Heo YS, Chang HM, Kim TW, Ryu MH, Ahn JH, Kim SB, Lee JS, Kim WK, Cho HK, Kang YK (2004) Hand-foot syndrome in patients treated with capecitabine-containing combination chemotherapy. J Clin Pharmacol 44 (10): 1166–1172

  11. Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, Zalcberg JR, Tu D, Au HJ, Berry SR, Krahn M, Price T, Simes RJ, Tebbutt NC, van Hazel G, Wierzbicki R, Langer C, Moore MJ (2007) Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357 (20): 2040–2048

  12. Kang YK, Lee SS, Yoon DH, Lee SY, Chun YJ, Kim MS, Ryu MH, Chang HM, Lee JL, Kim TW (2010) Pyridoxine is not effective to prevent hand-foot syndrome associated with capecitabine therapy: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Oncol 28 (24): 3824–3829

  13. Koopman M, Antonini NF, Douma J, Wals J, Honkoop AH, Erdkamp FL, de Jong RS, Rodenburg CJ, Vreugdenhil G, Loosveld OJ, van Bochove A, Sinnige HA, Creemers GJ, Tesselaar ME, Slee PH, Werter MJ, Mol L, Dalesio O, Punt CJ (2007) Sequential vs combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer (CAIRO): a phase III randomised controlled trial. Lancet 370 (9582): 135–142

  14. Lassere Y, Hoff P (2004) Management of hand-foot syndrome in patients treated with capecitabine (Xeloda). Eur J Oncol Nurs 8 (Suppl 1): S31–S40

  15. Milano G, Etienne-Grimaldi MC, Mari M, Lassalle S, Formento JL, Francoual M, Lacour JP, Hofman P (2008) Candidate mechanisms for capecitabine-related hand-foot syndrome. Br J Clin Pharmacol 66 (1): 88–95

  16. Miwa M, Ura M, Nishida M, Sawada N, Ishikawa T, Mori K, Shimma N, Umeda I, Ishitsuka H (1998) Design of a novel oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, capecitabine, which generates 5-fluorouracil selectively in tumours by enzymes concentrated in human liver and cancer tissue. Eur J Cancer 34 (8): 1274–1281

  17. Moosmann N, von Weikersthal LF, Vehling-Kaiser U, Stauch M, Hass HG, Dietzfelbinger H, Oruzio D, Klein S, Zellmann K, Decker T, Schulze M, Abenhardt W, Puchtler G, Kappauf H, Mittermuller J, Haberl C, Schalhorn A, Jung A, Stintzing S, Heinemann V (2011) Cetuximab plus capecitabine and irinotecan compared with cetuximab plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: AIO KRK-0104 – a randomized trial of the German AIO CRC Study Group. J Clin Oncol 29 (8): 1050–1058

  18. Porschen R, Arkenau HT, Kubicka S, Greil R, Seufferlein T, Freier W, Kretzschmar A, Graeven U, Grothey A, Hinke A, Schmiegel W, Schmoll HJ (2007) Phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil and leucovorin plus oxaliplatin in metastatic colorectal cancer: a final report of the AIO Colorectal Study Group. J Clin Oncol 25 (27): 4217–4223

  19. Rea DW, Nortier JW, Ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Falk S, Richel DJ, Maughan T, Groenewegen G, Smit JM, Steven N, Bakker JM, Semiond D, Kerr DJ, Punt CJ (2005) A phase I/II and pharmacokinetic study of irinotecan in combination with capecitabine as first-line therapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 16 (7): 1123–1132

  20. Schuller J, Cassidy J, Dumont E, Roos B, Durston S, Banken L, Utoh M, Mori K, Weidekamm E, Reigner B (2000) Preferential activation of capecitabine in tumor following oral administration to colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 45 (4): 291–297

  21. Tol J, Koopman M, Cats A, Rodenburg CJ, Creemers GJ, Schrama JG, Erdkamp FL, Vos AH, van Groeningen CJ, Sinnige HA, Richel DJ, Voest EE, Dijkstra JR, Vink-Borger ME, Antonini NF, Mol L, van Krieken JH, Dalesio O, Punt CJ (2009) Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 360 (6): 563–572

  22. Tol J, Koopman M, Rodenburg CJ, Cats A, Creemers GJ, Schrama JG, Erdkamp FL, Vos AH, Mol L, Antonini NF, Punt CJ (2008) A randomised phase III study on capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab with or without cetuximab in first-line advanced colorectal cancer, the CAIRO2 study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). An interim analysis of toxicity. Ann Oncol 19 (4): 734–738

  23. Twelves C, Scheithauer W, McKendrick J, Nowacki M, Seitz J, Van Hazel G, Wong A, Diaz-Rubio E, Gilberg F, Cassidy J (2008) Capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV in stage III colon cancer: updated 5-year efficacy data from X-ACT trial and preliminary analysis of relationship between hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and efficacy. ASCO 2008 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium abstract 274

  24. Wolf SL, Qin R, Menon SP, Rowland Jr KM, Thomas S, Delaune R, Christian D, Pajon Jr ER, Satele DV, Berenberg JL, Loprinzi CL (2010) Placebo-controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a urea/lactic acid-based topical keratolytic agent for prevention of capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N05C5. J Clin Oncol 28 (35): 5182–5187

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all patients who consented to enter the study, and all investigators from the participating study sites for their great support. We acknowledge support from Merck-Serono. We thank Mr Matthias Wolff for expert secretarial support. This study was funded by Merck Serono, Darmstadt, Germany.

Author information

Correspondence to V Heinemann.

Rights and permissions

From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stintzing, S., Fischer von Weikersthal, L., Vehling-Kaiser, U. et al. Correlation of capecitabine-induced skin toxicity with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the German AIO KRK-0104 trial. Br J Cancer 105, 206–211 (2011) doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.227

Download citation

Keywords

  • capecitabine
  • colorectal cancer
  • cetuximab
  • skin toxicity

Further reading